EMILY'S List

 

Pro-abortionist foregoes the usual pretense: having an abortion is “not difficult”

By Dave Andrusko
We describe EMILY’s List as a wealthy pro-abortion PAC that supports only female Democrats who accept no limitations on abortion whatsoever–plus the rest of us are supposed to pay for abortions. No Republican women, no men of either party—only female Democrats who are as extreme as EMILY’s List is will receive their dollars.

So it didn’t surprise me this morning when Janet Harris, a former communications director for EMILY’s List, would pen an op-ed for the Washington Post trashing anyone who might suggest that having an abortion is a “difficult decision.”

That included the largest abortion provider in the galaxy, Planned Parenthood, and Hillary Clinton who (according to Harris) described the decision to have an abortion as “one of the most fundamental, difficult and soul-searching decisions a woman and a family can make” and “often the most difficult [decision] that a woman will ever make.”

Of course, neither Clinton nor PPFA is even remotely sincere. That is the protective shield they have donned because it “permits pro-choice candidates to look less dogmatic.”
But to Harris, that’s the point. Dogmatism is good. Put another way, there is no reason to say having an abortion is difficult. In fact there are two very good reasons not to.
#1. Slippery Slopeism

“[W]hen the pro-choice community frames abortion as a difficult decision, it implies that women need help deciding, which opens the door to paternalistic and demeaning ‘informed consent’ laws. It also stigmatizes abortion and the women who need it.”

#2. Her own abortion was a no-brainer. When she found she was pregnant

“The question wasn’t ‘Should I or shouldn’t I?’ but ‘How quickly can I get this over with?’”

Harris doesn’t dwell on #2. Why should she? “An unwanted pregnancy would have derailed my future,” she explains. That Harris permanently derailed her baby’s future is too trivial to even mention. Abortion is a “simple” decision, not “hard,” let alone “soul-searching.”
Good decision made quickly, so that’s enough of that. Back to #1.
Besides trashing pro-lifers for insincerity (what a surprise), the bulk of the op-ed is to hammer her co-belligerents who think they “must play the game” (my characterization, not Harris’). That’s why Harris looks askance at the “pro-choice” label. That choice of language took pro-abortionists off the offensive.

“Once these groups locked themselves into a discussion of ‘choice,’ terminating a pregnancy became an option rather than a necessity. Pro-choice groups would be a lot stronger, more effective and more in sync with the women they represent if they backed away from the defensive ‘difficult decision’ posture.”

What to say? When abortion advocates are making the argument that few women agonize over their decision—that abortion is really a walk in the park— for once they don’t mug reality, at least in one important respect.

There are “heart-wrenching decisions” for Harris, cases “involving fetal anomalies, or in which the health of the mother is in question.” She writes

“But these situations are quite rare. A Guttmacher Institute survey of women in the United States seeking abortions found that 3 percent said the main reason was a fetal health problem, and 4 percent cited a problem with their own health. The percentage of women seeking an abortion because they were victims of rape or incest was less than 1.5 percent.

Over and over she insists that the decision to have an abortion isn’t difficult (back to #2). But when pro-choice advocates suggest it is, there is “a more pernicious result”—“It is a tacit acknowledgment that terminating a pregnancy is a moral issue requiring an ethical debate” (back to #1).
However abortion is freighted with moral and ethical issues. How could it not be, Harris to the contrary notwithstanding? We kill the powerless because we can and in the process do not even bother to acknowledge the possibility that we have stepped off an ethical cliff.

We’re talking about the new movie “The Giver” later today. If we lived in a culture where it was not only permitted but required that the less-than-perfect (old and young) be eliminated, would moral and ethical issues simply vanish because we don’t acknowledge them? If “everybody” did it?

Harris is a part of the pro-abortion movement that believes the more brutal they are; the more matter-of-fact they make the decision to annihilate a million children a year; the less conscience they reveal, the better off their cause is.

Older pro-abortionists know how important it is to pretend to be marginally conflicted. They know that being brutally honest, constantly callous, and determinedly dogmatic will eventually exact an enormous toil.

Source: NRLC News